![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Impressionist Paris
Sep. 5th, 2010 09:03 pmOur summer of museums continued today when Kimberly and I went out to the Palace of the Legion of Honor to see, "Impressionist Paris", the first of two shows they're doing to complement the two major impressionist shows being held at the De Young Museum.
This one offered a broader view of Paris and of the artistic side of it during the era of the impressionists. The exhibit was composed of ten rooms, each with its own theme. One covered magazine art of the time, another Paris in 1871 during the the of "The Commune", another the group portfolios that were published, etc.
Though not as viscerally exciting as "The Birth of Impressionism" show at the De Young, this one offered an intriguing overview of the era, really doing a lot to detail the times and where the artists were coming from. I've really enjoyed the increasing understanding I've gained of impressionism and the world that surrounded it in the late 1800s. Overall, the exhibit contained a lot of art that I'd generally classify as "interesting", but also a number of pieces that I loved.
First, I was surprised by a number of etchings and black-and-white drawings by impressionists, something I hadn't really seen before. It was quite interesting to see some of the impressionist techniques--most showing off water or steam, in the much shorter hand of black-and-white work.
Second, I loved a piece that showed a garden scene with some people lounging under a bright-red umbrella with green ferns behind them. It looked entirely and vibrantly realistic, but you saw a lot of the play of light and shadow that you see in impressionist work, with light shining through both the umbrella and the ferns and shadows playing across those ferns too. Totally gorgeous. It took me a while to come up with the name, but it's "Afternoon in the Cluny Garden Paris 1889" by Charles Curran. (The online pictures I've seen don't do the vibrancy of the original justice.)
Third, I really enjoyed a pointillist piece done by Georges Seurat showing the Eiffel Tower. I'd love to see more of his work.
Fourth, we saw four of Henri Riviere's 36 Views of the Eiffel Tower. Besides being amazing snapshots in time (they largely showed the Tower under construction), they also were pretty amazing blends of Japanese art of the period and impressionism. I hope we get to see more like that in the Palace's next pseudo-impressionist show, which is on Japanese art in the impressionist period. (Again, those photos I linked to just don't do justice to the originals which had much more color.)
Among other things we learned today: artists in pre-Impressionist Paris drew lots of dogs and artists in post-Impressionist Paris drew lots of cats. Who knew?
While at the museum, Kimberly and I both went to see some of our favorites in their permanent collection--and also were disappointed. Kimberly wanted to see some water lillies (which are out traveling) and some Rodin (which had apparently been on loan from Stanford when she saw it previously), while I wanted to see a Dali they used to have. Dunno where that went. In any case, we skimmed through some of the Palace's more modern art, including their impressionist room.
We also spent a while out in the grassy area out in front of the museum. We had lunch there, and then later sat a while before we went home. Each time we read a bit of our current Louise Erdrich book too, The Beet Queen.
A beautiful area with gorgeous views of the Golden Gate & bridge. Much enjoyment was had by all.
And now, we're both tired. Shock.
This one offered a broader view of Paris and of the artistic side of it during the era of the impressionists. The exhibit was composed of ten rooms, each with its own theme. One covered magazine art of the time, another Paris in 1871 during the the of "The Commune", another the group portfolios that were published, etc.
Though not as viscerally exciting as "The Birth of Impressionism" show at the De Young, this one offered an intriguing overview of the era, really doing a lot to detail the times and where the artists were coming from. I've really enjoyed the increasing understanding I've gained of impressionism and the world that surrounded it in the late 1800s. Overall, the exhibit contained a lot of art that I'd generally classify as "interesting", but also a number of pieces that I loved.
First, I was surprised by a number of etchings and black-and-white drawings by impressionists, something I hadn't really seen before. It was quite interesting to see some of the impressionist techniques--most showing off water or steam, in the much shorter hand of black-and-white work.
Second, I loved a piece that showed a garden scene with some people lounging under a bright-red umbrella with green ferns behind them. It looked entirely and vibrantly realistic, but you saw a lot of the play of light and shadow that you see in impressionist work, with light shining through both the umbrella and the ferns and shadows playing across those ferns too. Totally gorgeous. It took me a while to come up with the name, but it's "Afternoon in the Cluny Garden Paris 1889" by Charles Curran. (The online pictures I've seen don't do the vibrancy of the original justice.)
Third, I really enjoyed a pointillist piece done by Georges Seurat showing the Eiffel Tower. I'd love to see more of his work.
Fourth, we saw four of Henri Riviere's 36 Views of the Eiffel Tower. Besides being amazing snapshots in time (they largely showed the Tower under construction), they also were pretty amazing blends of Japanese art of the period and impressionism. I hope we get to see more like that in the Palace's next pseudo-impressionist show, which is on Japanese art in the impressionist period. (Again, those photos I linked to just don't do justice to the originals which had much more color.)
Among other things we learned today: artists in pre-Impressionist Paris drew lots of dogs and artists in post-Impressionist Paris drew lots of cats. Who knew?
While at the museum, Kimberly and I both went to see some of our favorites in their permanent collection--and also were disappointed. Kimberly wanted to see some water lillies (which are out traveling) and some Rodin (which had apparently been on loan from Stanford when she saw it previously), while I wanted to see a Dali they used to have. Dunno where that went. In any case, we skimmed through some of the Palace's more modern art, including their impressionist room.
We also spent a while out in the grassy area out in front of the museum. We had lunch there, and then later sat a while before we went home. Each time we read a bit of our current Louise Erdrich book too, The Beet Queen.
A beautiful area with gorgeous views of the Golden Gate & bridge. Much enjoyment was had by all.
And now, we're both tired. Shock.